Wan Suhaimi bin Wan Sidek

Wan Suhaimi bin Wan Sidek

The High Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the prosecution established uninterrupted chain of custody and sufficient evidence of the appellant's control and knowledge of the seized cannabis; the defence explanation invoking a third party ("Li Botak") was unproven and raised late such that adverse inferences under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 were not inappropriate; therefore conviction under s.6 and sentence under s.39A(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 were affirmed.

Citation
KA-42S-2-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/accused: Wan Suhaimi bin Wan Sidek; Respondent/prosecution: Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 March 2021
Case Number
KA-42S-2-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (drug Offence) / Appeal Decided (high Court Judgment on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Possession of Controlled Drug, Knowledge and Custody of Drugs, Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act 1950, Impeachment of Witness Statements
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Evidence Law Possession of Controlled Drug Knowledge and Custody of Drugs Statutory Presumptions Under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act 1950 Impeachment of Witness Statements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wan Suhaimi bin Wan Sidek

Appellant/accused

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (drug Offence) / Appeal Decided (high Court Judgment on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prima facie case was established by the prosecution
  2. 2 Whether possession and knowledge of the cannabis by the appellant were proven
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in applying statutory presumption s.37(d) DDA 1952 without first making a finding of positive possession

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the prosecution established uninterrupted chain of custody and sufficient evidence of the appellant's control and knowledge of the seized cannabis; the defence explanation invoking a third party ("Li Botak") was unproven and raised late such that adverse inferences under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 were not inappropriate; therefore conviction under s.6 and sentence under s.39A(2) Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction by the Sessions Court affirmed